provide him, automatically and free of charge, the services of a lawyer throughout the judicial proceedings in the domestic courts. Having failed to do so, the Respondent State violated Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. iv. The allegation that the thirty years prison sentence was not in force at the time the facts occured 70. The Applicant submits that the thirty (30) years prison sentence pronounced by the Trial Court against him was excessive in terms of Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code which prescribes a maximum sentence of fifteen (15) years; and therefore that his conviction contravened the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. He further submits that the 30 years prison sentence introduced and published by the Official Gazette No. 269 of 2004 in its Section 287 A, was not applicable at the time the facts occurred. 71. The Respondent State contests the above allegations, submitting that it lies with the Applicant to prove it. According to the Respondent State, the punishment applicable to the offence of armed robbery under the tt/inimum Sentences Act as amended, is a custodial sentence of at least 30 (thirty) years. It states in conclusion that the punishment for armed robbery handed down by the Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 199/1998 was consistent with the Penal Code, the Minimum Sentences Act and Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977). *** 72. The Court notes that the issue for determination is whether or not the sentence meted outon theApplicant in 1999, and upheld bythe Court of Appeal in 2006 and 2007, is in breach of the law. 73 10 The Court has already noted that thirty (30) years prison sentence has been, since 1994 the minimum punishment applicable to armed robbery in the United Republic of Tanzania.l0 ln this case, the records showthat in March 19g8, the Abubakari v. Tanzania Judgment op.cit.para. 210 t7 v @-( <-)'-